Infant Baptism

[Pedrito]

… Continued

In Post #111 on Page 12, I pointed out how MoreCoffee in his Post #104 on Page 11 had unwittingly argued against his own position – that of defending infant baptism as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In reply, in Post #124 (Page 13) MoreCoffee asked:

Given your stated views can you tell us what baptism means? What is its significance? Why baptise? Why be baptised?

Now to those individual questions asked by MoreCoffee.


What does baptism mean?

The act of Christian baptism in its original form (which remains the only valid form) means that someone has made the inward decision to dedicate their life to God because of what Jesus has done for them through His redeeming sacrifice.

What is its significance?

True baptism is the outward acknowledgement of an inward decision to commence a new life dedicated to God.

Why baptise?

Because Jesus said to baptise those who would follow Him, because the Apostles baptised those who expressed the faith that would lead them to be followers, and because when someone in our day expresses such faith, someone needs to help them take the final step (baptism) which acts as a final seal (as in Jesus' case).

Why be baptised?

Because without baptism, the final step in a God-ordained process is left undone. Hence the statements regarding baptism saving people, being buried with Jesus in baptism, etc. And since God's Inspired Message to us states that without faith it is impossible to please Him, those statements about baptism must refer to an act carried out after faith has taken hold.

 

[Lamb]

… Continued

In Post #111 on Page 12, I pointed out how MoreCoffee in his Post #104 on Page 11 had unwittingly argued against his own position – that of defending infant baptism as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In reply, in Post #124 (Page 13) MoreCoffee asked:


Now to those individual questions asked by MoreCoffee.


What does baptism mean?

The act of Christian baptism in its original form (which remains the only valid form) means that someone has made the inward decision to dedicate their life to God because of what Jesus has done for them through His redeeming sacrifice.

What is its significance?

True baptism is the outward acknowledgement of an inward decision to commence a new life dedicated to God.

Why baptise?

Because Jesus said to baptise those who would follow Him, because the Apostles baptised those who expressed the faith that would lead them to be followers, and because when someone in our day expresses such faith, someone needs to help them take the final step (baptism) which acts as a final seal (as in Jesus' case).

Why be baptised?

Because without baptism, the final step in a God-ordained process is left undone. Hence the statements regarding baptism saving people, being buried with Jesus in baptism, etc. And since God's Inspired Message to us states that without faith it is impossible to please Him, those statements about baptism must refer to an act carried out after faith has taken hold.

No scriptural references?

 

[MoreCoffee]

To those who teach exclusive credo-baptism: what does baptism do and what does it mean?

 

[Pedrito]

Lämmchen in Post #282 asked:

No scriptural references?

To which I simply reply, what's the point?

Direct, clear scriptural references are ignored by ritualists.

They prefer to read into scriptures of their choosing, the things they wish and need to be there.

I come from an Anglican background. You didn't know that did you? And I had significant contact with Lutherans at that time as well. And had Roman Catholic friends (and still do). I know how ritualists think and the distortions they resort to, in order to sand-bag their positions.

And to think that I once conformed, and was party to the dishonesty, out of misplaced loyalty.

But once I let the Scriptures take precedence, my conscience would not let me remain in an environment like that.

So now I am here in this thread acting as conscience to the ritualists.

“No scriptural references?”

This thread has abounded with them already. And as already noted, they have been ignored.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And in all the toing and froing that has been going on, an important and relevant aspect of how God works has been overlooked.

That is not necessarily surprising, because most church groups keep whatever “Bible study” they conduct, at a shallow level. The leaders know that studying more deeply would unearth unwanted questions about some of their doctrines and practices, and that would not do at all.

I probably will not present the information, because it grieves me when I see God's Holy Word maligned, as it in all likelihood would be.


Now, a regular international Bible study with seriously minded people via Skype could be another matter. But I will leave it to someone else to suggest.

 

[Pedrito]

MoreCoffee in Post #283 asked:

To those who teach exclusive credo-baptism: what does baptism do and what does it mean?

I've just had a great idea.

Why doesn't someone ask a question or two (or three), then when the questions are answered, ask the same question or questions a different way?

Why not do it multiple times?

Oh. I've just realised my idea is not original after all.

MoreCoffee and others have beaten me to it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee in Post #283 asked:

I've just had a great idea.

Why doesn't someone ask a question or two (or three), then when the questions are answered, ask the same question or questions a different way?

Why not do it multiple times?

Oh. I've just realised my idea is not original after all.

MoreCoffee and others have beaten me to it.

A sterling idea. Humour me. What does baptism DO?

What does baptism MEAN?

 

[Josiah]

Direct, clear scriptural references are ignored.

The new, tiny tradition of withholding baptism from those under the age of X indeed has no Scriptural references. THAT has been very well documented in this thread and elsewhere. In the nearly 500 years since a man in Germany first invented this new tradition of witholding, none embracing that new tradition have been able to find any Scritpture reference to support it. The command (not suggestion) is to do it. What we lack is the, "But NOT unless the received as reached the age of X!" "But NOT unless the receiver has officially celebrated their Xth birthday!" And for those who attempt to change to topic of this thread, nor have any of them in the 500 years this this new tradition was invented have any of them found the verse that says, "But NOT unless they first have wept six quarts of tears in repentance!" "But NOT unless they first have recited correctly the sinner's prayer and participated in an altar call" The tiny few that embrace this new tradition of withholding have yet to find one reference, even just one, to support their new position, new tradition of withholding.

Neither of those two churches gives general recognition to baptism performed by other churches.

Absolutely wrong. Both Catholics and Lutherans (and all other communities who do not embrace this very new, very small tradition of withholding baptism from those who have not yet lived X number of years since their birth) do NOT reject Baptisms performed in other denominations. The opposite is true: they ACCEPT the baptisms done in other churches; its' the very rare, very few denominations that are following this very new tradition invented by a German anabaptist in the late 16th Century of protesting paedobaptism, withholding baptism to any who have not yet reached a never disclosed age who reject the baptisms done in most other churches. You have the situation exactly backwards. Indeed, Lutherans ACCEPT baptisms done in the churches that are following this new tradition of withholding, but those churches do not accept the baptisms done by churches following the universal practice going back to 69 AD AT THE VERY LATEST - of not withholding it according to age (paedobaptism), of NOT resisting the command to baptize. You have this too backwards.



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

I note that Josiah is still promulgating the invalid “age X” argument.

Those protesting paedobaptism are protesting baptism permitted to any under an undisclosed age ("X"). This thread is exclusively, solely, wholly about that prohibition. And the resulting new tradition (going back to a German in the late 16th Century who invented it) of only permitting baptism to those who FIRST have attained a certain age (never disclosed, hwoever).



This thread is about the new, tiny tradition of protesting the practice of paedobaptism (read the title of the thread). And the resulting new tradition of a very few of withholding Baptism from those under an undisclosed age.



+ Now, some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistence that the Bible forbids offering baptism to any who have not FIRST wept buckets in repentance. But they have ceased that point since none of them could produce a Scripture that teaches that prohibition, that mandated witholding baptism from those who have not FIRST wept in reprentance.....


+ And some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistance that the Bible forbids offering baptism to any who have not FIRST declared their faith in Christ and/or correctly recited the sinner's prayer and/or adequately participated in an altar call, but they have ceased that point since they could not think of a single verse that so mandates.


+ And some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistence that we are forbidden to give/do anything to anyone unless they FIRST have given their formal consent to such. But they have ceased that point since not only could they not find a single verse that remotely so states, but actually ones that indicate that we ARE to do things regardless of consent.


But so far, NOTHING to support this new, small tradition of withholding baptism from those who have not yet lived X years since their birth. Again, this thread is about those rejecting, protesting the practice (going back to 69 AD at the latest) of paedo-baptism, of NOT withholding baptism according to number of years lived.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The priests, deacons, bishops and all others who rightly administer baptism within the Catholic Church will not knowingly re-baptise any person who has already received baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alithis]

It was used by both of us...but that was pages ago so it's hard to keep track. No problem.

You missed the connection I was making between babies being able to have faith and that's what some of you are complaining about, that they can't be believers. Yet, Jesus and scriptures tell us that babies can have faith. Just because you don't know what's going on in their heads doesn't mean God is just as ignorant. He is the Almighty who can do great things. His WORD is what changes us and His Word is in with the waters of baptism. He put his promises in baptism and His Word is there. His Word does not return to him empty. His Word causes change and gives faith.

you wil have to refresh me .. i have not met a "baby" who is able to- hear the word of God and- activate faith in it by thier own will ,become aware of thier "sin? " and turn to God by faith in the lord Jesus and then choose to obey his word ,the Gospel and so be baptised according to thier faith. thier obedience being evidence of thier activated faith .

 

[Alithis]

Those protesting paedobaptism are protesting baptism permitted to any under an undisclosed age ("X"). This thread is exclusively, solely, wholly about that prohibition. And the resulting new tradition (going back to a German in the late 16th Century who invented it) of only permitting baptism to those who FIRST have attained a certain age (never disclosed, hwoever).



This thread is about the new, tiny tradition of protesting the practice of paedobaptism (read the title of the thread). And the resulting new tradition of a very few of withholding Baptism from those under an undisclosed age.



+ Now, some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistence that the Bible forbids offering baptism to any who have not FIRST wept buckets in repentance. But they have ceased that point since none of them could produce a Scripture that teaches that prohibition, that mandated witholding baptism from those who have not FIRST wept in reprentance.....


+ And some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistance that the Bible forbids offering baptism to any who have not FIRST declared their faith in Christ and/or correctly recited the sinner's prayer and/or adequately participated in an altar call, but they have ceased that point since they could not think of a single verse that so mandates.


+ And some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistence that we are forbidden to give/do anything to anyone unless they FIRST have given their formal consent to such. But they have ceased that point since not only could they not find a single verse that remotely so states, but actually ones that indicate that we ARE to do things regardless of consent.


But so far, NOTHING to support this new, small tradition of withholding baptism from those who have not yet lived X years since their birth. Again, this thread is about those rejecting, protesting the practice (going back to 69 AD at the latest) of paedo-baptism, of NOT withholding baptism according to number of years lived.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

it must be such a source of frustration to you that the bible NEVER instructs baptising babies and therefore it is not a bible based action.. thus the tradition of doing so ..is new and apart from scripture .
but you know this . you just refuse to conform your tradition to the word of god, seeking rather to conform Gods word to your tradition . and cannot do so .

 

[Josiah]

the bible NEVER instructs baptising babies

I never siad it specifically does. Of course, it also doesn't instruct us to baptize adults or Germans or Americans or Negros or Asians or those with blonde hair or those with college degrees. So, do you withhold baptism from them? And the Great Command - to love as Chrsit first loved us, do you withhold love to all Baptists because you can't find a verse that says, "And this includes those officially registered in congregations owned and operated by a Baptist denomination? When it says "forgive those who repent" do you refuse to forgive a Canadian because you can't find the verse that says, "And this includes Canadians?" No. I suspect, you take commands to include all UNLESS there is a specific limitation. You'd tell me, "We are to love all - UNLESS you can find a verse that says, 'But NOT Canadians, you are forbidden to love Canadians!"

It's YOU embracing and defending the new, rare Tradition invented by a German Anabaptist in the late 16th Century that we should withhold baptism from those who have not yet lived "X" years since their birth (protesting paedobaptism), YOU protesting the universal practice going back AT LEAST to 69 AD. This INVENTED prohibition that this German Anabaptist invented in the late 16th Century is what we're discussing - and you are supporting it. But so far, you haven't been able to come up with the verse you seem to think he SUDDENLY found about 500 years ago that not a single Christian ever noticed before, this verse that states, "But thou mayest NOT baptize any privious to they livng X years since their birth." You are defending this new, rare tradition of withholding baptism.... you just have yet to produce anything from Scripture that makes this exclusion by age, this command to withhold it. You are the one supporting this new invention of withholding in this very specific matter - you just haven't produced the verse to exclude it. If someone came alone and INSISTED that we must NOT teach the Gospel to Koreans, I suspect you'd shout "Where does Scripture say THAT?" Ah..... Think about it.

the tradition of doing so ..is new and apart from scripture .

That's what you've shown. This tradition you are defending as what the Bible states, this new tradition that comes from a German Anabaptist less than 500 years ago of withholding baptism unless the receiver has first lived "X" years, this rejection of paedobaptism that was/is universally embraced since 69 AD AT THE VERY LATEST, the new tradition you are defending is new and as you have shown, without Biblical statement (unless you HAVE found that verse that German found nearly 500 years ago that no Christian before that noticed,.... you've found it.... but you just won't tell us what it is).

Those protesting paedobaptism are protesting baptism permitted to any under an undisclosed age ("X"). This thread is exclusively, solely, wholly about that prohibition. And the resulting new tradition (going back to a German in the late 16th Century who invented it) of only permitting baptism to those who FIRST have attained a certain age (never disclosed, hwoever).



This thread is about the new, tiny tradition of protesting the practice of paedobaptism (read the title of the thread). And the resulting new tradition of a very few of withholding Baptism from those under an undisclosed age.



+ Now, some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistence that the Bible forbids offering baptism to any who have not FIRST wept buckets in repentance. But they have ceased that point since none of them could produce a Scripture that teaches that prohibition, that mandated withholding baptism from those who have not FIRST wept in reprentance.....


+ And some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistance that the Bible forbids offering baptism to any who have not FIRST declared their faith in Christ and/or correctly recited the sinner's prayer and/or adequately participated in an altar call, but they have ceased that point since they could not think of a single verse that so mandates.


+ And some have felt the need to CHANGE (hijack) the thread to their insistence that we are forbidden to give/do anything to anyone unless they FIRST have given their formal consent to such. But they have ceased that point since not only could they not find a single verse that remotely so states, but actually ones that indicate that we ARE to do things regardless of consent.


But so far, NOTHING to support this new, small tradition of withholding baptism from those who have not yet lived X years since their birth. Again, this thread is about those rejecting, protesting the practice (going back to 69 AD at the latest) of PAEDO-baptism, of NOT withholding baptism according to number of years lived.



.

Josiah



.

 

[Alithis]

I never siad it specifically does. Of course, it also doesn't instruct us to baptize adults or Germans or Americans or Negros or Asians or those with blonde hair or those with college degrees. So, do you withhold baptism from them? And the Great Command - to love as Chrsit first loved us, do you withhold love to all Baptists because you can't find a verse that says, "And this includes those officially registered in congregations owned and operated by a Baptist denomination? When it says "forgive those who repent" do you refuse to forgive a Canadian because you can't find the verse that says, "And this includes Canadians?" No. I suspect, you take commands to include all UNLESS there is a specific limitation. You'd tell me, "We are to love all - UNLESS you can find a verse that says, 'But NOT Canadians, you are forbidden to love Canadians!"

It's YOU embracing and defending the new, rare Tradition invented by a German Anabaptist in the late 16th Century that we should withhold baptism from those who have not yet lived "X" years since their birth (protesting paedobaptism), YOU protesting the universal practice going back AT LEAST to 69 AD. This INVENTED prohibition that this German Anabaptist invented in the late 16th Century is what we're discussing - and you are supporting it. But so far, you haven't been able to come up with the verse you seem to think he SUDDENLY found about 500 years ago that not a single Christian ever noticed before, this verse that states, "But thou mayest NOT baptize any privious to they livng X years since their birth." You are defending this new, rare tradition of withholding baptism.... you just have yet to produce anything from Scripture that makes this exclusion by age, this command to withhold it. You are the one supporting this new invention of withholding in this very specific matter - you just haven't produced the verse to exclude it. If someone came alone and INSISTED that we must NOT teach the Gospel to Koreans, I suspect you'd shout "Where does Scripture say THAT?" Ah..... Think about it.






That's what you've shown. This tradition you are defending as what the Bible states, this new tradition that comes from a German Anabaptist less than 500 years ago of withholding baptism unless the receiver has first lived "X" years, this rejection of paedobaptism that was/is universally embraced since 69 AD AT THE VERY LATEST, the new tradition you are defending is new and as you have shown, without Biblical statement (unless you HAVE found that verse that German found nearly 500 years ago that no Christian before that noticed,.... you've found it.... but you just won't tell us what it is).







Josiah



.

yet again.. you did not correctly read my post so your reply is in error .. i said ..the scripture never instructs to baptise babies .. ( because it gives the instruction called the gospel which is not baptism"alone " ) -therefore the practice of baptising babies is the new tradition . not the reverse as you attempt to make it sound . basicly ,what you keep saying is ..- because it is been done by so many for so long, it must be right - but you can't and won't ever find it in the bible to back that up . which means the entire traditional doctrine of infant baptism is based fully on tradition and zero on scripture . hence i wont ever adhere to it .
you do it if you wish, i don't prohibit nor forbid it . but be careful for if you misled a person into thinking they are saved because they were sprinkled as a baby-without thier knowledge ,without activation of faith ,without having heard and responded obediently to the gospel .. God will hold you accountable for that .

 

[psalms 91]

yet again.. you did not correctly read my post so your reply is in error .. i said ..the scripture never instructs to baptise babies .. ( because it gives the instruction called the gospel which is not baptism"alone " ) -therefore the practice of baptising babies is the new tradition . not the reverse as you attempt to make it sound . basicly ,what you keep saying is ..- because it is been done by so many for so long, it must be right - but you can't and won't ever find it in the bible to back that up . which means the entire traditional doctrine of infant baptism is based fully on tradition and zero on scripture . hence i wont ever adhere to it .
you do it if you wish, i don't prohibit nor forbid it . but be careful for if you misled a person into thinking they are saved because they were sprinkled as a baby-without thier knowledge ,without activation of faith ,without having heard and responded obediently to the gospel .. God will hold you accountable for that .

Absolutely true

 

[TurtleHare]

yet again.. you did not correctly read my post so your reply is in error .. i said ..the scripture never instructs to baptise babies .. ( because it gives the instruction called the gospel which is not baptism"alone " ) -therefore the practice of baptising babies is the new tradition . not the reverse as you attempt to make it sound . basicly ,what you keep saying is ..- because it is been done by so many for so long, it must be right - but you can't and won't ever find it in the bible to back that up . which means the entire traditional doctrine of infant baptism is based fully on tradition and zero on scripture . hence i wont ever adhere to it .
you do it if you wish, i don't prohibit nor forbid it . but be careful for if you misled a person into thinking they are saved because they were sprinkled as a baby-without thier knowledge ,without activation of faith ,without having heard and responded obediently to the gospel .. God will hold you accountable for that .

Jesus says to baptize all nations. Your babies aren't a part of any nations?

Your tradition is newer than ours. Ours started when entire households were baptized and continued on, proof is given in the OP for other historical documentation.

 

[Josiah]

I never said it specifically does. Of course, it also doesn't instruct us to baptize adults or Germans or Americans or Negros or Asians or those with blonde hair or those with college degrees. So, do you withhold baptism from them? And the Great Command - to love as Chrsit first loved us, do you withhold love to all Baptists because you can't find a verse that says, "And this includes those officially registered in congregations owned and operated by a Baptist denomination? When it says "forgive those who repent" do you refuse to forgive a Canadian because you can't find the verse that says, "And this includes Canadians?" No. I suspect, you take commands to include all UNLESS there is a specific limitation. You'd tell me, "We are to love all - UNLESS you can find a verse that says, 'But NOT Canadians, you are forbidden to love Canadians!"

It's YOU embracing and defending the new, rare Tradition invented by a German Anabaptist in the late 16th Century that we should withhold baptism from those who have not yet lived "X" years since their birth (protesting paedobaptism), YOU protesting the universal practice going back AT LEAST to 69 AD. This INVENTED prohibition that this German Anabaptist invented in the late 16th Century is what we're discussing - and you are supporting it. But so far, you haven't been able to come up with the verse you seem to think he SUDDENLY found about 500 years ago that not a single Christian ever noticed before, this verse that states, "But thou mayest NOT baptize any privious to they livng X years since their birth." You are defending this new, rare tradition of withholding baptism.... you just have yet to produce anything from Scripture that makes this exclusion by age, this command to withhold it. You are the one supporting this new invention of withholding in this very specific matter - you just haven't produced the verse to exclude it. If someone came alone and INSISTED that we must NOT teach the Gospel to Koreans, I suspect you'd shout "Where does Scripture say THAT?" Ah..... Think about it.






That's what you've shown. This new tradition you are defending as what the Bible states, this new tradition that comes from a German Anabaptist less than 500 years ago of withholding baptism unless the receiver has first lived "X" years, this rejection of paedobaptism that was/is universally embraced since 69 AD AT THE VERY LATEST, the new tradition you are defending is new and as you have shown, without Biblical statement (unless you HAVE found that verse that German found nearly 500 years ago that no Christian before that noticed,.... you've found it.... but you just won't tell us what it is).







.

i said ..the scripture never instructs to baptise babies ..

Read my reply to your silly point.

I reject your rubric that unless a group is specifically mentioned, ERGO they are forbidden. Why do you teach Americans or blondes or Koreans or .... when you don't have a SINGLE VERSE says "Teach Americans.... blondes.... Koreans." After all, you don't have specific instruction to teach them - just the general instruction to teach. And I assume you forbid loving African Americans since there is not one verse that says to love THEM - just the command to love. Why select those under the age of X to withhold this? I agree, never does it say "Baptize those under the age of X" but then it doesn't say "only baptize those over the age of X" either. And it doesn't say to baptize Baptists..... or brown haired people..... or Democrats..... or folks that speak English..... so, following your rubric, we are forbidden to baptize them - there's no verse that says we are permitted to. I find your whole rubric.... well..... absurd. And since you don't believe it, you don't follow it, you don't apply it - I see no reason why we could believe it, accept it, apply it. Since your denomination baptizes people NOT specifically PERMITTED by the Bible (Americans..... blondes..... Baptists.....English speakers) ergo your denomination doesn 't accept your rubric, your premise, your point that we can ONLY baptize those subsets of humanity that we are specifically told to baptize. Since you don't accept your premise..... you find it silly..... you'll accept why I think it's silly, too.

the practice of baptising babies is the new tradition

Wrong.

Paedobaptism dates to 69 AD at the very, very latest. Your tradition of withholding baptism to those who have not yet lived "X" number of years since their birth (anti-paedobaptism) dates to Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century who invented your new tradition of withholding it. The 16th century is later than the 1st century.

you can't and won't ever find it in the bible to back that up[

Yup. You are unwilling or unable to quote the verse, "But DO NOT - repeat DO NOT - baptize any who have not yet lived "X" number of years since their birth, thus is forbidden!!!!" OR any verse that says, "but NOT Americans! But NOT Baptists! But NOT any who speak English! Or NOT any who are over four feet tall! But NOT any who have blue eyes! But NOT any who have a college degree!" You have yet to offer ANY verse that says "But NOT for any - ANY - subgroup." Yet you insist paedobaptism is wrong. You just can't seem to produce any verse that gives that exception, the justification for this new, rare tradition that comes from that German nearly 500 years ago.




- Josiah





.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I thought baptism was first in the spirit then water then blood.

How can an infant be understand and follow the teachings of Christ is they can't even comprehend it?

I could be wrong, but I thought baptism was an admittance of being a born again Christian.

I personally have yet to been baptised. According to y'alls opinion; does that mean I'm not saved?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly curious.

Thanks.
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Alithis]

Jesus says to baptize all nations. Your babies aren't a part of any nations?

Your tradition is newer than ours. Ours started when entire households were baptized and continued on, proof is given in the OP for other historical documentation.

again - it is dishonest to say that there is proof of baptising babies. as i have said before ..you cannot say they baptised babies just becaseu it says that and i cannot say they did not . i have been honest on that point i wish others would be also . thus we do not build a theology based on a preferred assumption -we build it upon what the word of God DOES say .

repent and be baptised .

as for baotisng all nations including non consenting babies -by that reasoning -why have you not grabbed hold of dead people ,muslim people, buddhist people, hindu people, gay people and baptised them ? just go grab them and splash them in the water and they will all be saved-right ? ..im mean, thats what's been implied when that reasoning is used reason like that .Or does "all nations" only mean babies of saved people ? but wait that would exclude al others ..ouh what a dither dather of web we weave .

no sorry .using that verse to try and make a foundation for the doctrine of infant baptising is less then shaky ..it is no foundation at all .

you see this is what im talking about ?- in order to defend a man made tradition people have to really stretch , pull twist and manipulate the scripture in an attempt to get it to fit the man made tradition .
But if you throw out the man made tradition and just adhere to the direct unambiguous word of God . the issue Never arises and no stretching twisting pulling yanking or manipulating needs to be done .

i never have to defend what is simply NOT written in scripture .

 

[Alithis]

I thought baptism was first in the spirit then water then blood.

How can an infant be understand and follow the teachings of Christ is they can't even comprehend it?

I could be wrong, but I thought baptism was an admittance of being a born again Christian.

I personally have yet to been baptised. According to y'alls opinion; does that mean I'm not saved?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly curious.

Thanks.
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

its been well covered i assure you
the gospel is not a singular instruction but a collection of instruction on the way to be saved .
I wil pm you a link i posted early in this thread .. it is so much more then just a declaration or a symbol
just as the red sea was a symbol of baptism to come ..so the baptism into the death and resurrection of christ is the real thing and is power .not symbol .(that is why it is so vehemently attacked by the adversary and watered down and obscured .. he does not want people to realize the full power in the obedience of being buried into the death of the lord JEsus and being raised up again into HIS life in us . )

and just as the serpent on the pole was raised up in the days of moses as a symbol of the real thing that was to be ..so JEsus became sin and was raised up on the cross and it is the real thing and it is power . you ask are you not saved if not baptised ? i challenge this to you in sincere love .. Are we saved if we obey the gospel or if we resist the Gospel ?

- the Gospel ..the good news that the lord jesus became one of us ,died on the cross for our sin ,lay in the ground three days and three night and rose again from the dead ... the only scriptural response to the gospel = "believe , Repent , be baptised and you will receive the holy Ghost "

will pm you

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thought baptism was first in the spirit then water then blood.

How can an infant be understand and follow the teachings of Christ if they can't even comprehend it?

I could be wrong, but I thought baptism was an admittance of being a born again Christian.

You're wrong. Baptism is not "admittance of being a born again Christian". Baptism is being born from above. Jesus said it this way: "In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above ... In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit"

I personally have yet to been baptised. According to y'alls opinion; does that mean I'm not saved?

You've never been baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly curious.

Thanks.
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

If you are not baptised then you ought to seek baptism.